It appears that this is not settled case law, with the most recent case in the 9th district court (basically all of the west coast) ruling that at least public officials have the right to have affairs with coworkers: https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Police-can-t-be-fir...

Other appeals courts have ruled otherwise, but the 9th district court has had a couple of precedents in the past, according to the article.

Personally, I think it's an interesting issue. If the company fires the higher ranked employee, they are probably losing more value.

It's also interesting that I think everyone would agree that it would be absurd to fire any employee if they were a married couple - yet absent the (mostly religious and tax related) binds of marriage, there's some moral judgment cast upon the participants. It seems so puritanical and absurd. What if the two employees got married before anyone found out about the affair? I bet they'd be protected both legally and in terms of moral or business implications.

It appears many states actually prevent firing based on marital status: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111041550490175318

From that one, "One reason is that about 20 states and many cities ban employment discrimination on the basis of marital status. If a married employee who has an affair is fired and an unmarried employee who has an affair isn't, the fired employee in those states conceivably could claim illegal discrimination, attorneys say. Thus, many employers turn a blind eye to marital cheating."

We're not talking about marital status, nor do we care that Drummond was married at the time the affair began. We care about the fact that he had the affair with a subordinate.

You seem to not get it.

Situation 1: Person A and B are married and have a sexual relationship. A is a VP, B is just a regular worker. Nobody has a problem with this, and policies generally don't have any problem with coworkers being married.

Situation 2: Person A and B are not married and have a sexual relationship. A is a VP, B is just a regular worker. Some people have a problem with this, and policies often have a problem with coworkers being married.

That's called discrimination based on marital status (or lack thereof).

In case you didn't know, most companies would feel very uncomfortable with situation 1. Creating a situation where someone is managing their significant other is asking for disaster.

Absolutely. I knew a couple who met and married at American Express. It was strictly forbidden that one manage the other. I suspect that's the case at most large companies.

Termination at will doesn't cover things that violates people's rights, and a whole host of other things.

You can't fire someone because they are black, or gay, or Mormon, or get sick - and probably not because they fall in love with each other either.

Most US employers absolutely can legally fire an employee because of who they fall in love with, as long as the action isn't based on a policy which disproportionately impacts a protected class.

Maybe you're right, but I'm doubtful. I wonder how it would hold up in a big supreme court challenge (or maybe it has already ... I'm not an expert)

On what grounds are you doubtful? The concept of protected classes is well-defined and well-tested and "office lovebirds" aren't one of those classes.

For fuck's sake, "being gay" isn't even one of those classes.

Federal protected class, no. But in CA, yeah, it is.

https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/what-are-c...

About the same as "employee says controversial thing in personal life". In other words, employer has absolutely every right to fire them for their self-expression.

"About the same as "employee says controversial thing in personal life""

No way. Two people falling in love is not in the same category as someone saying public things.

You think maybe employment at will is just waiting to be tested in the Supreme Court?

"You think maybe employment at will is just waiting to be tested in the Supreme Court?"

It's in court right now.

And it always will be.

Maybe it should.

Yes but "rights" are legally defined, not just 'well I feel like I have a right to this'. Employees dating their subordinates is not a protected class, so "and probably not because they fall in love with each other either" is factually incorrect.

termination for no reason is not the same as termination for any reason.